Consumer Social Responsibility and Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence in Generation Z's sustainable purchase intention: the mediating roles of Green Trust and Green Perceived Value

1 Introduction

Sustainable consumption has become an important concern in consumer research as consumers increasingly encounter products and marketing claims associated with environmental responsibility. However, the availability of sustainable products and environmental information does not necessarily correspond with purchase intention, making it important to understand the factors that shape consumers' evaluations of such products. Green purchase intention has been examined through several consumer-level determinants, including environmental concern, knowledge, perceived value, trust, and other attitudinal factors (Yadav and Pathak, 2016; Zhuang et al., 2021). In this context, Generation Z represents an important consumer group because of its extensive engagement with digital and social-media environments and its exposure to sustainability-related information (Di Pillo et al., 2025; Slepian et al., 2024). Recent empirical research has specifically examined Generation Z's green purchasing behavior and identified Consumer Social Responsibility and green consumer trust as relevant factors in sustainable consumption (Borah et al., 2024). Similarly, research among Generation Z has shown that social-media information sharing is associated with green purchase intention, highlighting the relevance of digitally mediated sustainability information in contemporary consumption decisions (Sun and Xing, 2022). These developments suggest that understanding sustainable purchasing among Generation Z requires consideration of both consumers' own sense of environmental responsibility and the sustainability-related information they encounter through social media.

Consumer Social Responsibility and Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence may provide different routes through which sustainable-product evaluations are formed. Consumer Social Responsibility concerns consumers' recognition of their responsibility for the environmental consequences of consumption, whereas sustainability-related social-media influence reflects the informational and social influence arising from sustainability-related content encountered through digital platforms. Existing evidence indicates that Consumer Social Responsibility is relevant to Generation Z's green purchasing behavior and is associated with green consumer trust (Borah et al., 2024; Ngo et al., 2025), while research on social-media information sharing demonstrates its relevance to Generation Z's green purchase intention (Sun and Xing, 2022). At the same time, the credibility of environmental claims remains important because consumers may encounter uncertainty regarding whether sustainability claims and environmental performance are reliable. Green Trust has therefore emerged as an important construct in green consumer research (Chen, 2010), while Green Perceived Value captures consumers' evaluation of the environmental benefits and value associated with green products (Chen and Chang, 2012). Recent social-media research further demonstrates the importance of Green Trust in explaining consumers' responses to eco-friendly products in digitally mediated settings (Wu and Long, 2024), and research among Generation Z has similarly identified Green Trust as relevant to green purchase intention (Rahmawati et al., 2024). These findings indicate that responsibility and social-media influence may not translate directly into purchase intention but may operate through consumers' evaluations of trust and perceived environmental value.

Despite this growing body of research, the relationships among these constructs have not been sufficiently integrated within a single framework. Existing studies have examined Consumer Social Responsibility, social-media information, Green Trust, Green Perceived Value, and green purchase intention, but often focus on particular antecedents or individual relationships rather than examining the two sources of influence and the two evaluative mechanisms simultaneously (Borah et al., 2024; Sun and Xing, 2022; Chen and Chang, 2012; Wu and Long, 2024; Dang et al., 2025). Accordingly, the present study examines whether Consumer Social Responsibility and Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence are associated with Generation Z consumers' Purchase Intention toward sustainable products and whether Green Trust and Green Perceived Value function as intervening mechanisms in these relationships. The study therefore brings together consumer responsibility and sustainability-related social-media influence within an integrated framework and examines their relationships with two distinct consumer evaluations—Green Trust and Green Perceived Value—and subsequent Purchase Intention. By doing so, the study seeks to provide a more focused understanding of how responsibility and social-media influence are associated with sustainable purchasing among Generation Z.

2 Literature review and hypothesis development

This study draws on the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S–O–R) framework proposed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) to explain how antecedent conditions are associated with consumers' internal evaluations and subsequent behavioral responses. Although the original framework primarily emphasized environmental stimuli and affective states, subsequent consumer research has extended the organismic stage to include cognitive and evaluative processes such as trust, perceived value, satisfaction, and perceived usefulness (Vieira, 2013; Wu and Long, 2024; Hoang and Tung, 2024).

Importantly, the S–O–R framework contributes more than a structural arrangement of predictors, mediators, and an outcome. Its theoretical proposition is that antecedent conditions are associated with a behavioral response through intervening internal evaluations. Applied to the present study, this implies that Consumer Social Responsibility and Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence are not expected to be associated with Purchase Intention only as direct antecedents; rather, their relationships with Purchase Intention are expected to be explained, in part, through consumers' organismic evaluations of sustainable products, represented by Green Trust and Green Perceived Value, while the model also allows for direct relationships with Purchase Intention. The framework therefore provides the theoretical basis for examining whether these cognitive evaluations constitute mechanisms linking the antecedent conditions to Purchase Intention.

Consumer Social Responsibility represents an individual-level and relatively enduring orientation rather than an externally imposed stimulus. Nevertheless, it is treated in this study as an antecedent condition within the Stimulus component of an extended S–O–R framework because the model conceptualizes both the consumer's pre-existing responsibility orientation and the externally encountered social-media stimulus as conditions that precede and are associated with the organismic evaluation stage. CSR is not conceptualized as a moderator because the study does not examine whether it changes the strength of relationships among the other constructs; rather, CSR is examined as an antecedent of the organismic evaluations. This treatment is consistent with contemporary applications of S–O–R that accommodate consumer characteristics and internal antecedent conditions alongside externally generated stimuli (Chopdar et al., 2022; Malik et al., 2024). For example, Chopdar et al. (2022) incorporated consumer characteristics and situational variables within the stimulus component, while Malik et al. (2024) distinguished internal stimuli from external stimuli such as online reviews and eWOM.

In contrast, Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence (SMIF) represents an externally encountered informational and social stimulus arising from sustainability-related content, recommendations, discussions, and interactions on social media. Thus, CSR and SMIF differ in their substantive nature, but both function as antecedent conditions preceding the organismic stage. Green Trust (GT) and Green Perceived Value (GPV) constitute the organismic stage, representing consumers' cognitive evaluations of the credibility and value of sustainable products, respectively. Purchase Intention (PI) represents the response component. Accordingly, the S–O–R framework provides a process-based explanation of how different antecedent conditions are associated with consumers' internal evaluations and subsequent Purchase Intention, rather than merely arranging the constructs as predictors, mediators, and an outcome.

Accordingly, the proposed model (Figure 1) examines the relationships among Consumer Social Responsibility, Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence, Green Trust, Green Perceived Value, and Purchase Intention, with Green Trust and Green Perceived Value positioned as intervening mechanisms.

2.1 Consumer Social Responsibility, Green Trust and Green Perceived Value

Consumer Social Responsibility reflects consumers' recognition of the social and environmental consequences of their consumption choices and their responsibility for these consequences (Schlaile et al., 2018; Woldeyohanis, 2025; Caruana and Chatzidakis, 2014; Quazi et al., 2016). In sustainable consumption, consumers who recognize these responsibilities may pay closer attention to whether sustainable products and the organizations offering them are consistent with their environmental commitments. This attention may lead them to evaluate the credibility and reliability of environmental claims and product performance, which may contribute to confidence in sustainable products. Consumer Social Responsibility may therefore be positively associated with Green Trust. Empirical research among Generation Z also identifies Consumer Social Responsibility and Green Consumer Trust as relevant to green consumption (Borah et al., 2024). Therefore:

• H1: Consumer Social Responsibility is significantly and positively associated with Green Trust.

Consumer Social Responsibility may also shape consumers' evaluation of the value of sustainable products. When environmental and social considerations are relevant to consumption decisions, consumers may place greater emphasis on the environmental and social benefits offered by sustainable products. These considerations may influence how consumers assess the benefits of a product relative to the sacrifices involved in purchasing it, thereby providing a basis for an association between Consumer Social Responsibility and Green Perceived Value. Previous research has also linked consumer responsibility-related factors with Green Perceived Value and related green consumption evaluations (Ahmad and Zhang, 2020; Borah et al., 2024; Quazi et al., 2016). Therefore:

• H2: Consumer Social Responsibility is significantly and positively associated with Green Perceived Value.

2.2 Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence, Green Trust and Green Perceived Value

Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence (SMIF) refers to the influence consumers receive from sustainability-related information, recommendations, discussions, and content encountered through social media. As an externally encountered informational and social influence, SMIF may provide environmental information and social cues that shape consumers' evaluations of sustainable products. Such information may provide consumers with additional cues for evaluating the credibility of environmental claims and product performance. When relevant sustainability information is available, uncertainty surrounding the evaluation of sustainable products may be reduced, which may contribute to greater confidence in their environmental claims and performance. SMIF may therefore be positively associated with Green Trust. This expectation is consistent with research linking social-media-based sustainability communication with Green Trust and green purchase-related responses (Wu and Long, 2024; Rahmawati et al., 2024; Alawi et al., 2025; Faisal et al., 2026). Therefore:

• H3: Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence is significantly and positively associated with Green Trust.

SMIF may also shape consumers' evaluation of the environmental value of sustainable products. Sustainability-related information encountered through social media may provide information about the environmental benefits and characteristics of sustainable products, making these attributes more salient during product evaluation. This information may assist consumers in assessing whether the environmental benefits of sustainable products justify the sacrifices involved in purchasing them. SMIF may therefore be positively associated with Green Perceived Value. Empirical research among Generation Z has reported an indirect relationship between social-media information sharing and green purchase intention through Green Perceived Value, supporting the relevance of social-media-based sustainability information to value-related evaluations (Sun and Xing, 2022). Related research also supports the role of Green Perceived Value in social-media-related sustainable purchasing contexts (Li and Shan, 2025; Nurrahma and Sugiarto, 2026). Therefore:

• H4: Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence is significantly and positively associated with Green Perceived Value.

2.3 Green trust, green perceived value and purchase intention

Green Trust represents consumers' confidence in the environmental claims, performance, and commitments associated with green products. When consumers regard these claims and product performance as credible, uncertainty concerning the reliability of sustainable products may be reduced, which may increase their willingness to consider such products in purchase decisions. Green Trust may therefore be positively associated with Purchase Intention. This expectation is supported by research identifying Green Trust as relevant to green purchase intention, including among Generation Z consumers (Rahmawati et al., 2024; Halim et al., 2025; Filip et al., 2025).

Green Perceived Value reflects consumers' evaluation of the environmental benefits and overall value of sustainable products relative to the sacrifices involved in purchasing them. When consumers perceive that the environmental benefits of a sustainable product justify the sacrifices required to obtain it, these evaluations may make the product a more acceptable option within the purchase decision. Green Perceived Value may therefore be positively associated with Purchase Intention. Previous research has reported associations between Green Perceived Value and green purchase-related outcomes (Jaiswal and Kant, 2018; Riva et al., 2022; Cam, 2023; Kar et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2024). Recent evidence also identifies perceived green value as relevant to Generation Z's intention to purchase eco-products (Li and Shan, 2025; Filip et al., 2025).

Within the S–O–R framework, Green Trust and Green Perceived Value represent distinct internal evaluations through which consumers assess the credibility and value of sustainable products before forming purchase-related responses. Examining them simultaneously therefore allows their respective associations with Purchase Intention to be assessed within the same model.

• H5: Green Trust is significantly and positively associated with Purchase Intention.
• H6: Green Perceived Value is significantly and positively associated with Purchase Intention.

2.4 Consumer Social Responsibility, sustainability-related social media and purchase intention

Consumer Social Responsibility reflects consumers' recognition of the social and environmental consequences of their consumption choices. When consumers consider these consequences in their consumption decisions, they may use environmental and social considerations alongside functional attributes when evaluating available products. Sustainable products may therefore be perceived as more consistent with responsible consumption, which may increase their acceptability as purchase choices. Consumer Social Responsibility may consequently be positively associated with Purchase Intention. Empirical evidence supports a positive association between Consumer Social Responsibility and green purchase intention (Ahmad and Zhang, 2020). Research among Generation Z likewise identifies Consumer Social Responsibility as relevant to green purchasing behavior (Borah et al., 2024), while recent evidence links socially responsible attitudes with green consumption intention and sustainable buying behavior (Çam et al., 2025). Therefore:

• H7: Consumer Social Responsibility is positively associated with Purchase Intention.

Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence represents the sustainability-related information, recommendations, discussions, and social cues encountered through social media. Such content may provide consumers with information about sustainable products and their environmental attributes, making these characteristics available for consideration during purchase-related evaluation. This information may assist consumers in comparing sustainable alternatives and assessing their relevance to the purchase decision, particularly when alternatives differ in their environmental characteristics. Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence may therefore be positively associated with Purchase Intention. Research among Generation Z has reported an association between social-media information sharing and green purchase intention (Sun and Xing, 2022). Evidence from sustainable fashion similarly indicates that brand-generated and user-generated social-media content is associated with Generation Z consumers' purchase intentions (El-Shihy and Awaad, 2025). Therefore:

• H8: Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence is positively associated with Purchase Intention.

2.5 Green trust as a mediator between Consumer Social Responsibility, Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence and purchase intention

Green Trust represents consumers' confidence in the environmental claims, performance, and commitments associated with sustainable products. As an internal evaluation, Green Trust may connect sustainability-related antecedents with Purchase Intention because confidence in environmental claims can reduce uncertainty in assessing sustainable products. When consumers regard such claims as credible and reliable, they may be more willing to consider sustainable products in their purchase decisions. Green Trust may therefore provide a pathway through which Consumer Social Responsibility and Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence are associated with Purchase Intention. Evidence from Generation Z and other green-consumption contexts supports the relevance of Green Trust to sustainable purchasing and its role in purchase-related relationships (Borah et al., 2024; Budak et al., 2023; Tarabieh, 2021; Wu and Long, 2024; Rahmawati et al., 2024; Faisal et al., 2026).

• H9: Green Trust mediates the relationship between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention.
• H10: Green Trust mediates the relationship between Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence and Purchase Intention.

2.6 Green perceived value as a mediator between Consumer Social Responsibility, Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence and purchase intention

Green Perceived Value reflects consumers' assessment of the environmental benefits and overall value of sustainable products relative to the sacrifices involved in purchasing them. As a cognitive evaluation of product benefits and sacrifices, Green Perceived Value may connect sustainability-related antecedents with Purchase Intention by shaping consumers' assessment of whether a sustainable product offers sufficient value to warrant its associated sacrifices. When the perceived environmental benefits are considered meaningful relative to these sacrifices, consumers may be more willing to consider the product in their purchase decisions. Green Perceived Value may therefore transmit the associations of Consumer Social Responsibility and Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence with Purchase Intention. Previous research has linked Green Perceived Value with green purchase-related outcomes and has identified its relevance in social-media-related sustainable purchasing contexts (Ahmad and Zhang, 2020; Sun and Xing, 2022; Li and Shan, 2025; Kara and Min, 2024; Nurrahma and Sugiarto, 2026).

• H11: Green Perceived Value mediates the relationship between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention.
• H12: Green Perceived Value mediates the relationship between Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence and Purchase Intention.

3 Methodology

3.1 Research design

This study adopted a quantitative, cross-sectional research design to examine the relationships among Consumer Social Responsibility, Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence, Green Trust, Green Perceived Value, and Purchase Intention among Generation Z consumers. The explanatory design was appropriate because the study sought to test the hypothesized relationships and determine whether Green Trust and Green Perceived Value mediate the relationships between the two antecedent variables and Purchase Intention. The study was theoretically grounded in the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S–O–R) framework, with Consumer Social Responsibility and Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence representing the antecedent conditions, Green Trust and Green Perceived Value representing the organismic evaluative processes, and Purchase Intention representing the behavioral response. Data were collected through an online structured questionnaire. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics and AMOS, while Structural Equation Modeling was employed to evaluate the measurement and structural models. Bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples was used to assess the significance of the proposed indirect effects.

3.2 Sample and data collection

The target population comprised Generation Z consumers aged 18–29 residing in Chennai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad who had exposure to sustainability-related social-media content and sustainable products. A non-probability purposive sampling approach was employed to identify respondents meeting these eligibility criteria. The questionnaire was administered online and circulated through WhatsApp groups (17.87%), social-media networks (40.35%), university networks (30.26%), and professional networks (11.53%). The questionnaire link was shared through these networks to reach eligible Generation Z respondents, and participation was voluntary. To reduce the possibility of duplicate submissions, the survey was configured to allow only one response from each email address. No quotas were imposed for occupation or primary social-media platform. The questionnaire was distributed approximately equally across the three selected cities to obtain broadly comparable representation from each location. A screening process was conducted before the main questionnaire to ensure that respondents met the eligibility criteria. Specifically, eligibility was restricted to respondents aged 18–29 years to ensure that all participants were adults within the intended Generation Z segment. The screening questions also ensured that respondents had relevant exposure to sustainable products and sustainability-related social-media content. Occupation and primary social-media platform were collected as self-reported characteristics of the respondents, and no quotas were imposed for either characteristic. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed, and 347 complete and usable responses were retained for the final analysis. Of these, 114 respondents were from Chennai, 117 from Bengaluru, and 116 from Hyderabad. Sample-size adequacy was considered with reference to established methodological guidance for covariance-based structural equation modeling. Bentler and Chou (1987) proposed considering the ratio of sample size to free parameters in structural models, while Jackson (2003) showed that such ratios should be interpreted alongside absolute sample size rather than treated as a universal criterion. Moreover, simulation evidence indicates that SEM sample-size requirements vary according to model characteristics, including the number of factors and indicators, factor-loading magnitudes, and structural effects (Wolf et al., 2013). The present study retained 347 complete and usable responses for a model comprising five latent constructs and 16 observed indicators. Taken together, these methodological considerations provided a basis for considering the achieved sample appropriate for the planned EFA, CFA, and covariance-based SEM, while recognizing that SEM sample-size requirements are model-dependent rather than determined by a single fixed threshold. Prior to the main survey, a pilot study involving 126 respondents was conducted to assess the preliminary reliability, clarity, and contextual suitability of the questionnaire. The internal consistency of the measurement scales was examined using Cronbach's alpha, with coefficients of 0.829 for Consumer Social Responsibility, 0.746 for Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence, 0.779 for Green Perceived Value, 0.831 for Green Trust, and 0.914 for Purchase Intention. The results indicated acceptable preliminary internal consistency across all constructs. Based on pilot feedback and expert review, minor wording refinements were made to improve clarity, readability, and suitability for Generation Z respondents. For example, the Future Purchase Intention item was revised from “I plan on buying eco-friendly options going forward” to “I intend to purchase sustainable products in the future.” Similarly, the Alternative Choice item was refined from “I prefer picking eco-friendly items instead of standard, traditional goods” to “I am willing to choose sustainable products over conventional alternatives.” These changes involved only minor wording and presentation refinements and did not alter the underlying constructs or measurement structure. The pilot study was used for preliminary instrument assessment and refinement rather than for establishing the final factor structure. The 126 pilot respondents were excluded from the final sample of 347 respondents used for the EFA, CFA, and structural model analysis.

Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the 347 respondents. The sample consists of more females (59.9%) than males (40.1%). Most respondents are aged 22–29 years (83.3%), and undergraduate respondents form the largest educational group (67.1%). The respondents were distributed approximately evenly across the three study cities, with 114 (32.9%) from Chennai, 117 (33.7%) from Bengaluru, and 116 (33.4%) from Hyderabad. Salaried employees represent the highest occupational category (41.5%). In terms of monthly income, 37.5% earn ₹20,001–₹40,000. Most respondents purchase sustainable products frequently (33.1%). Among the respondents, Instagram was the most frequently reported primary social-media platform (32.0%), followed by YouTube (28.0%), LinkedIn (25.6%), and Facebook (14.4%). Regarding daily social-media usage, 31.1% spend 3–4 h per day. Overall, the sample is predominantly young, educated, and active on social media.

Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents.

Bold values indicate the total number of respondents and the corresponding percentage.

3.3 Instrument development

The study employed a structured questionnaire (Table 2) to measure the constructs included in the proposed research model. All substantive measurement items were assessed using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. The measurement items were adapted from previously validated scales used in quantitative empirical studies and were modified where necessary to reflect the context of Generation Z consumers and sustainable-product purchasing. The indicators capture different expressions of this underlying perceived influence, including its role in shaping consumers' views about sustainable products, influencing purchase-related considerations, and facilitating access to sustainability-related product information. Thus, the indicators are treated as reflective manifestations of a common latent construct rather than as distinct dimensions that collectively form SMIF. Within this conceptual domain, SMIF2 was retained because it captures the perceived influence of sustainability-related social media on consumers' purchase decision process rather than purchase intention itself. While the item refers to purchase decisions, it assesses the role of social-media engagement in shaping those decisions, whereas Purchase Intention captures consumers' stated intention or willingness to purchase sustainable products. SMIF2 therefore represents perceived social-media influence on the purchase decision process, rather than directly measuring consumers' purchase intention.

Table 2. Measuring instrument.

3.3.1 Section A: screening questions

Screening questions were included at the beginning of the questionnaire to ensure that only respondents meeting all predefined eligibility criteria participated in the main survey. Respondents were required to be aged 18–29 years, use social media, have encountered sustainability-related content on social media, and be familiar with products marketed as sustainable, environmentally friendly, eco-friendly, or green. A negative response to any screening question resulted in termination of the survey, ensuring that the final sample consisted only of respondents who satisfied all eligibility requirements.

3.4 Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) (Table 3) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.773, exceeding the recommended minimum threshold of 0.60, indicating that the sample was adequate for factor analysis. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (χ^**2** = 3549.724, df = 120, **p< 0.001**), demonstrating that the correlation matrix was significantly different from an identity matrix. These results confirm the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Accordingly, the measurement items were considered appropriate for further factor-structure assessment through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA).

Table 3. KMO and Bartlett's test.

Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with Varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalization was used to examine the underlying factor structure. A five-factor solution was obtained, with the CSR, PI, GT, GPV, and SMIF items loading on their respective factors. The factor loadings ranged from 0.568 to 0.934. The observed factor structure showed that the items generally loaded on their intended constructs, with no substantial cross-loadings, supporting the interpretability of the measurement structure.

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated an acceptable model fit. The normed chi-square (χ²/df) was 2.749, while GFI (0.917), RMR (0.028), NFI (0.929), IFI (0.953), TLI (0.940), and CFI (0.953) were within acceptable ranges. The RMSEA was 0.071, indicating an acceptable level of approximate model fit. Overall, the results support the adequacy of the proposed five-factor measurement model. Harman's single-factor test indicated that the first factor explained 27.141% of the variance, which was below the 50% threshold. The comparison of standardized factor loadings before and after the inclusion of the common latent factor showed a maximum change of 9.13%. Taken together, these assessments provide no indication of substantial common method bias in the present data; however, common method variance cannot be completely ruled out. Procedurally, potential common method bias was also considered during questionnaire development and administration through pilot testing, refinement of item wording for clarity, and the use of an anonymous online questionnaire to encourage independent responses.

Reliability and validity (Table 4) assessments were conducted to establish the quality and adequacy of the measurement model. Reliability and convergent validity were examined to assess the internal consistency and extent to which the measurement items adequately represented their respective constructs, while discriminant validity (Table 5) was assessed to confirm that the constructs were empirically distinct from one another (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2019).

Table 4. Reliability and convergent validity.

Table 5. Discriminant validity.

Bold diagonal values represent the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (√AVE) for each construct.

The reliability and validity assessment results are presented in Tables 4, 5. As shown in Table 4, Cronbach's alpha values range from 0.759 to 0.932, while Composite Reliability (CR) values range from 0.785 to 0.934, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 and indicating satisfactory internal consistency. The AVE values for CSR (0.824), SMIF (0.641), Green Trust (0.742), and Purchase Intention (0.798) are above the conventional threshold of 0.50, providing evidence of convergent validity for these constructs. For GPV, the AVE was 0.496, which is marginally below the conventional 0.50 criterion. The standardized factor loadings for GPV1, GPV2, GPV3, and GPV4 were 0.721, 0.733, 0.771, and 0.576, respectively. Although GPV4 exhibited the lowest standardized loading (0.576), it was retained because it contributes to the conceptual coverage of Green Perceived Value, and its removal was not considered justified solely to obtain a marginal increase in AVE. The four-item specification was therefore retained to preserve the intended content coverage of the construct. Nevertheless, the borderline AVE indicates that the convergent validity of GPV should be interpreted with some caution.

Table 5 presents the assessment of discriminant validity using the Fornell–Larcker criterion, with the diagonal values representing the square roots of AVE and the off-diagonal values representing correlations between constructs. The diagonal values for CSR (0.908), SMIF (0.801), GPV (0.704), Green Trust (0.861), and PI (0.893) exceed the corresponding inter-construct correlations, providing evidence of adequate discriminant validity among the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As an additional assessment, the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) was examined at the indicator level. HTMT values ranged from 0.034 to 0.563, with the highest value observed between Green Perceived Value and Green Trust (0.563). All HTMT values were below the commonly used thresholds of 0.85 and 0.90, providing additional support for discriminant validity.

4 Results

4.1 Structural equation model

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with 5,000 bootstrap resamples was employed to examine the hypothesized relationships among the study constructs. Bootstrapping was used to obtain bias-corrected confidence intervals and assess the statistical significance of the indirect effects, as it does not require the assumption of normality for the sampling distribution of mediation effects (Preacher and Hayes, 2008; Hair et al., 2022).

Table 6, the structural model (Figure 2) demonstrates an acceptable level of fit with the observed data. The χ²/df value of 3.729 falls below the recommended threshold of 5.00, while the RMR value of 0.052 is within the acceptable limit of 0.08. The GFI (0.920), CFI (0.926), TLI (0.906), and IFI (0.926) exceed the recommended threshold of 0.90. In addition, the RMSEA value of 0.079 remains below the recommended upper limit of 0.08. Taken together, these indices indicate that the structural model provides an adequate representation of the observed data and can therefore be considered appropriate for assessing the hypothesized relationships among the constructs.

Table 6. The structural model.

Bold values indicate the obtained model-fit indices reported for the structural model.

Table 7 presents the structural path estimates, p-values, and corresponding 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals. CSR → Green Trust showed a standardized coefficient of β = 0.264 (p < 0.001), while CSR → Green Perceived Value showed β = 0.174 (p = 0.008). Social Media Influence → Green Trust yielded β = 0.130 (p =0.045), whereas Social Media Influence → Green Perceived Value yielded β = −0.079 (p = 0.254). Green Trust → Purchase Intention showed β = 0.256 (p < 0.001), whereas Green Perceived Value → Purchase Intention showed β = −0.133 (p = 0.027). The direct path from CSR → Purchase Intention was β = −0.107 (p = 0.098), while Social Media Influence → Purchase Intention was β = 0.011 (p = 0.867). The explanatory power of the structural model was assessed using the squared multiple correlations (R²). The model explained 11.2% of the variance in Green Trust (R² = 0.112), 2.6% of the variance in Green Perceived Value (R² = 0.026), and 8.0% of the variance in Purchase Intention (R² = 0.080), indicating relatively limited explanatory power across the endogenous constructs. Additional diagnostics were conducted to examine the unexpected negative relationship between Green Perceived Value and Purchase Intention. The zero-order correlation between GPV and PI was weak and non-significant (r = −0.040, p = 0.462). In contrast, GPV showed a significant negative association with PI in the multiple regression model after accounting for the other predictors (β = −0.143, p = 0.018), consistent with the SEM estimate (β = −0.133, p = 0.027). This contrast between the near-zero zero-order association and the significant negative multivariate coefficient is consistent with a possible suppression pattern. Collinearity diagnostics indicated no problematic multicollinearity among the predictors. Tolerance values were 0.827 for CSR, 0.855 for SMIF, 0.767 for GPV, and 0.710 for Green Trust, with corresponding VIF values of 1.210, 1.169, 1.304, and 1.409, respectively. These values indicate acceptable levels of collinearity among the predictors.

Table 7. Path analysis.

Table 8 presents the indirect effects estimated using 5,000 bootstrap resamples. The indirect effect for CSR → Green Trust → Purchase Intention was β = 0.068, with a 95% BC confidence interval of [0.019, 0.095] and p < 0.001. The indirect effect for Social Media Influence → Green Trust → Purchase Intention was β = 0. 033, with a 95% BC confidence interval of [−0.010, 0.121] and p = 0.109. The indirect effect for CSR → Green Perceived Value → Purchase Intention was β = −0. 023, with a 95% BC confidence interval of [−0.050, −0.001] and p = 0.038. Finally, the indirect effect for Social Media Influence → Green Perceived Value → Purchase Intention was β = 0. 011, with a 95% BC confidence interval of [−0.007, 0.067] and p = 0.207. The negative total effect for Consumer Social Responsibility (−0.062) reflects the combined direct and indirect pathways, whereas the positive total effect for Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence (0.055) indicates that its overall association with Purchase Intention is positive despite its non-significant direct effect.

Table 8. Mediation analysis.

Mediation analysis was conducted using bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples to assess the significance of the indirect effects and determine whether the proposed mediating relationships were statistically supported (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). Bold values indicate the reported mediation results, including standardized indirect effects, bootstrap confidence intervals, p-values, and interpretations.

5 Discussion

The findings indicate that Consumer Social Responsibility is positively associated with both Green Trust and Green Perceived Value. The relationship between Consumer Social Responsibility and Green Trust was positive and statistically significant (β = 0.264, p < 0.001), supporting H1. This suggests that consumers who are more conscious of the social and environmental consequences of their consumption decisions may place greater confidence in the environmental claims and commitments associated with sustainable products. This finding is consistent with Borah et al. (2024), who highlighted the relevance of Consumer Social Responsibility and Green Consumer Trust in Generation Z's green consumption. The positive relationship between Consumer Social Responsibility and Green Perceived Value (β = 0.174, p = 0.008) further suggests that consumers' sense of responsibility is associated with how they assess the value of sustainable products. When social and environmental considerations are important in consumption decisions, consumers may attach greater value to products that reflect these considerations.

Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence was also positively associated with Green Trust (β = 0.130, p = 0.045), supporting H3. Sustainability-related information encountered through social media may provide consumers with information and social cues that help them assess the credibility of sustainable products and environmental claims. Such sustainability-related social-media content may increase familiarity with sustainability issues and provide access to information from different sources, which may be associated with greater confidence in sustainable products. This finding is consistent with previous research linking social-media-based sustainability communication with trust and green purchase responses (Wu and Long, 2024; Rahmawati et al., 2024). However, Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence did not have a statistically significant relationship with Green Perceived Value (β = −0.079, p = 0.254), and H4 was therefore not supported. This suggests that sustainability-related social-media content does not necessarily translate into a higher evaluation of the value of sustainable products. Although social media may increase awareness and provide sustainability-related information, consumers' perceptions of product value may also depend on broader considerations, including product benefits, performance, usefulness, and perceived sacrifices. This finding therefore differs from previous research reporting a relationship between social-media-related sustainability information and value-related evaluations (Sun and Xing, 2022).

Green Trust showed a positive and statistically significant relationship with Purchase Intention (β = 0.256, p < 0.001), supporting H5. This finding suggests that consumers who have greater confidence in the reliability of sustainable products and their environmental claims are more likely to express an intention to purchase them. Green Trust may reduce uncertainty surrounding sustainability claims and provide consumers with greater confidence when evaluating sustainable products. The result is consistent with previous research identifying Green Trust as an important factor in green purchasing behavior (Filip et al., 2025; Rahmawati et al., 2024; Wu and Long, 2024).

In contrast, Green Perceived Value showed a statistically significant negative relationship with Purchase Intention (β = −0.133, p = 0.027). Although the relationship was statistically significant, H6 was not supported because the observed negative direction was contrary to the hypothesized positive relationship. This finding differs from the predominantly positive relationships reported in previous studies (Kar et al., 2024; Cam, 2023; Zhao et al., 2024). The negative coefficient is therefore an unexpected finding and warrants cautious interpretation. One possible explanation is that the relationship between Green Perceived Value and Purchase Intention changes when Green Trust and the other predictors are considered simultaneously. Consumers may recognize the environmental benefits of sustainable products without this perception necessarily being associated with stronger purchase intentions when other factors in the model are taken into account. However, the present study does not directly test the mechanisms underlying this negative relationship. Accordingly, this explanation should be regarded as a possible interpretation rather than a definitive explanation of the finding. Further research is needed to determine whether the negative relationship is replicated across different consumer groups, product categories, and consumption contexts.

The direct relationship between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention (H7) was negative but not statistically significant (β = −0.107, p = 0.098). Similarly, Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence did not have a statistically significant direct relationship with Purchase Intention (H8) (β = 0.011, p = 0.867). These findings indicate that neither antecedent had a statistically significant direct association with Purchase Intention when the other constructs in the model were considered simultaneously. The direct paths were estimated to provide a more complete assessment of the proposed mediating relationships and to clarify the nature of the relationships between the antecedents and Purchase Intention.

The mediation results provide further insight into these relationships. Green Trust significantly mediated the relationship between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention, as indicated by the positive indirect effect (β = 0.068, 95% BC CI [0.019, 0.095], p < 0.001), supporting H9. Because the indirect effect was statistically significant whereas the direct relationship between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention was not statistically significant (β = −0.107, p = 0.098), the findings are consistent with an indirect-only mediation pattern through Green Trust. This suggests that the association between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention may operate primarily through consumers' confidence in sustainable products rather than through a statistically significant direct relationship.

In contrast, the indirect effect of Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence on Purchase Intention through Green Trust was not statistically significant (β = 0.033, 95% BC CI [−0.010, 0.121], p = 0.109), and H10 was not supported. Thus, the present findings do not provide sufficient evidence that Green Trust significantly mediates the relationship between Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence and Purchase Intention. Although Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence was positively associated with Green Trust, this relationship did not result in a statistically significant indirect association with Purchase Intention.

Green Perceived Value also significantly mediated the relationship between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention (β = −0.023, 95% BC CI [−0.050, −0.001], p = 0.038), supporting H11. The negative indirect effect corresponds with the negative Green Perceived Value → Purchase Intention relationship observed in the structural model. Since the direct relationship between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention was not statistically significant, the findings are also consistent with an indirect-only mediation pattern through Green Perceived Value. However, because the indirect relationship operates through a negative GPV → PI path, the result should be interpreted cautiously rather than as evidence that higher perceived green value inherently reduces purchase intention.

The indirect effect of Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence on Purchase Intention through Green Perceived Value was not statistically significant (β = 0.011, 95% BC CI [−0.007, 0.067], p = 0.207), and H12 was therefore not supported. This indicates that the observed relationship between Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence and Green Perceived Value was not sufficient to establish a significant indirect association with Purchase Intention.

Overall, the findings highlight the distinct roles of Green Trust and Green Perceived Value within the proposed model. Green Trust significantly mediated the relationship between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention, while Green Perceived Value also significantly mediated this relationship, although the indirect effect was negative. In contrast, neither Green Trust nor Green Perceived Value significantly mediated the relationship between Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence and Purchase Intention. Taken together, these findings suggest that the proposed mediating relationships receive selective empirical support, with Consumer Social Responsibility showing significant indirect associations with Purchase Intention through both Green Trust and Green Perceived Value, whereas the corresponding relationships involving Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence were not statistically significant. Given the cross-sectional nature of the study, these relationships should be understood as associations consistent with the proposed S–O–R framework rather than as evidence of causal direction or temporal precedence.

6 Conclusion

This study examined the associations between Consumer Social Responsibility, Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence, Green Trust, Green Perceived Value, and Generation Z consumers' Purchase Intention. The findings indicate that Consumer Social Responsibility was positively associated with Green Trust and Green Perceived Value, while Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence was positively associated with Green Trust but not with Green Perceived Value. Green Trust showed a positive association with Purchase Intention and a significant indirect association between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention. In contrast, the corresponding indirect relationship involving Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence was not supported. Green Perceived Value showed a significant negative direct association with Purchase Intention and was also involved in a significant indirect association between Consumer Social Responsibility and Purchase Intention, whereas the corresponding indirect relationship involving Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence was not supported. Overall, the findings indicate distinct roles for Green Trust and Green Perceived Value within the proposed model, while the unexpected negative association between Green Perceived Value and Purchase Intention warrants further investigation.

6.1 Practical implications

The findings provide practical implications for businesses promoting sustainable products to Generation Z. The significant associations of Consumer Social Responsibility with Green Trust and Green Perceived Value suggest that sustainability communication may emphasize consumers' environmental responsibility and the environmental value associated with sustainable products. The significant association between Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence and Green Trust suggests that businesses may benefit from emphasizing credible and trustworthy sustainability-related communication through social media. However, because Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence was not significantly associated with Green Perceived Value, social-media communication should not be assumed to enhance consumers' perceived value of sustainable products. The significant association between Green Trust and Purchase Intention further underscores the relevance of credible and trustworthy sustainability-related communication in sustainable-product contexts. The negative association between Green Perceived Value and Purchase Intention should be interpreted cautiously, as the present study does not establish the mechanism underlying this unexpected relationship.

7 Future research

Future studies could further investigate the negative relationship between Green Perceived Value and Purchase Intention identified in the present study to determine whether this finding is replicated across different samples and contexts. As the present study focused on Generation Z consumers in Chennai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad, future research could examine other geographical settings and consumer groups to assess the broader applicability of the findings. The use of non-probability purposive sampling and online recruitment may limit the generalisability of the findings, particularly because the overrepresentation of respondents from specific online communities or networks cannot be completely excluded. A further limitation concerns the distribution of respondents across social-media platforms. LinkedIn was identified as the primary social-media platform by 25.6% of respondents, while 11.53% of questionnaire distribution occurred through professional networks. This discrepancy may reflect characteristics of the recruited sample or potential platform-related selection effects; therefore, the representativeness of the sample across social-media platforms should be interpreted with caution. In addition, the use of self-reported questionnaire data may introduce common method and response-related biases. Given the cross-sectional design, the findings should be interpreted as associations consistent with the proposed S–O–R framework rather than as evidence of causal direction or temporal precedence. Longitudinal or experimental research could therefore provide further insight into these relationships, including the possibility of reverse associations between Consumer Social Responsibility and Green Trust. Future research could also replicate the proposed model across different sustainable-product categories to examine whether the relationships among Consumer Social Responsibility, Sustainability-Related Social Media Influence, Green Trust, Green Perceived Value, and Purchase Intention remain consistent across product contexts. A further methodological limitation is that the EFA and CFA were conducted using the same final sample of 347 respondents rather than independent samples. Although this approach allowed the measurement structure to be explored and subsequently assessed within the available sample, future studies should cross-validate the factor structure using independent samples or separate exploratory and confirmatory datasets.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Michalis Skordoulis, University of West Attica, Greece

Reviewed by: Mohammad Olfat, Islamic Azad University, Iran

Isbandriyati Mutmainah, Universitas Nusa Bangsa, Indonesia